Nietzsche: occultist, Romantic, realist, fascist -- very black metal

Let us look each other in the face. We are Hyperboreans--we know well enough how remote our place is. "Neither by land nor by water will you find the road to the Hyperboreans": even Pindar1,in his day, knew that much about us. Beyond the North, beyond the ice, beyond death--our life, our happiness...We have discovered that happiness; we know the way; we got our knowledge of it from thousands of years in the labyrinth. Who else has found it?--The man of today?--"I don't know either the way out or the way in; I am whatever doesn't know either the way out or the way in"--so sighs the man of today...This is the sort of modernity that made us ill,--we sickened on lazy peace, cowardly compromise, the whole virtuous dirtiness of the modern Yea and Nay. This tolerance and largeur of the heart that "forgives" everything because it "understands" everything is a sirocco to us. Rather live amid the ice than among modern virtues and other such south-winds! . . . We were brave enough; we spared neither ourselves nor others; but we were a long time finding out where to direct our courage. We grew dismal; they called us fatalists. Our fate--it was the fulness, the tension, the storing up of powers. We thirsted for the lightnings and great deeds; we kept as far as possible from the happiness of the weakling, from "resignation" . . . There was thunder in our air; nature, as we embodied it, became overcast--for we had not yet found the way. The formula of our happiness: a Yea, a Nay, a straight line, a goal...

Mankind does not represent a development of the better of the stronger in the way that it is believed today. 'Progress' is merely a modern idea, that is to say a false idea. The European of today is of far less value than the European of the Renaissance; onward development is not by any means, by any necessity the same thing as elevation, advance, strengthening.

In another sense there are cases of individual success constantly appearing in the most various parts of the earth and fro the most various cultures in which a high type does manifest itself: something which in relation to collective mankind is a sort of superman. Such chance occurrences of great success have always been possible and perhaps always will be possible. And even entire races, tribes, nations can under certain circumstances represent such a lucky hit.- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ

Nietzsche was not a fascist, in the conventional sense of the notion. His philosophy was a cry for 'higher sorts' to think and act accroding to their own will to power, not tow a certain line. Additionally, though obivously related to this, he despised German nationalism...

Nietzsche was not a fascist, in the conventional sense of the notion. His philosophy was a cry for 'higher sorts' to think and act accroding to their own will to power, not tow a certain line. Additionally, though obivously related to this, he despised German nationalism...

The last point is indeed true, but this needs to be more evaluated. He often wrote of how much he was of Polish descent and not a German, but I think most see this as another way of distancing himself from Germans. He did indeed praise Germans in his writing such as Bach and Handel, Goethe, Schiller, etc. He however said these were Germans of an older, better race, and hated the Germans of his time. Perhaps he held his people to such high standards that he loathed them for failing to reach them.

Nietzsche was not a fascist, in the conventional sense of the notion. His philosophy was a cry for 'higher sorts' to think and act accroding to their own will to power, not tow a certain line. Additionally, though obivously related to this, he despised German nationalism...

Nietzsche was complex. I think, like Zen, he's both not-something and not-not-that-something.

For example, he hated German nationalism because of its imposition of rigid borders over organic population sprawl, and its failure to discriminate against stupid Germans. It's dysgenic, in the same way that Jane Austen saw including useless people into the gentry as dysgenic.

However, he did leave us plenty of writing on the importance of heritage, race, and most importantly, breeding upward. He also spoke of how most people are parasites who are unneeded by future civilization. Connect the dots.

He encouraged the individual to grow upward, but also pointed out how callow individualism caused corruption -- hence his dual use of the word "higher."

I think people who want to cast Nietzsche's name around should understand what they speak of, and not try to polarize him into arguments fabricated from the dumkopf groupthink of our time.

However, he did leave us plenty of writing on the importance of heritage, race, and most importantly, breeding upward. He also spoke of how most people are parasites who are unneeded by future civilization. Connect the dots.

Connect the dots?.. He does seems most concerned about the idea of breeding upwards, about the mixing of races, about heritage. But when he uses the word 'race' does he mean to refer to matters of ethnicity or rather overman/underman?

The topic of your post indicates that you think that Nietzsche was a fascist. Fascism as a concept involves, among other things, some sort of nationalism: nationalism as a 'unifying force'. Now Nietzsche did NOT seem to lament the mixing of 'races' per say, at least where it was an internal motivating/agitating force in the resulting individual. (And he was surely not a facist in a politial sense: fascism has always depended upon the masses: didn't he preach seperation from the masses and all ideologies that must stoop to them and involve them?)

"200. The man of an age of dissolution which mixes the races withone another, who has the inheritance of a diversified descent inhis body--that is to say, contrary, and often not only contrary,instincts and standards of value, which struggle with one anotherand are seldom at peace--such a man of late culture and brokenlights, will, on an average, be a weak man. His fundamentaldesire is that the war which is IN HIM should come to an end;happiness appears to him in the character of a soothing medicineand mode of thought (for instance, Epicurean or Christian); it isabove all things the happiness of repose, of undisturbedness, ofrepletion, of final unity--it is the "Sabbath of Sabbaths," touse the expression of the holy rhetorician, St. Augustine, whowas himself such a man.--Should, however, the contrariety andconflict in such natures operate as an ADDITIONAL incentive andstimulus to life--and if, on the other hand, in addition to theirpowerful and irreconcilable instincts, they have also inheritedand indoctrinated into them a proper mastery and subtlety forcarrying on the conflict with themselves (that is to say, thefaculty of self-control and self-deception), there then arisethose marvelously incomprehensible and inexplicable beings, thoseenigmatical men, predestined for conquering and circumventingothers, the finest examples of which are Alcibiades and Caesar(with whom I should like to associate the FIRST of Europeansaccording to my taste, the Hohenstaufen, Frederick the Second),and among artists, perhaps Leonardo da Vinci. They appearprecisely in the same periods when that weaker type, with itslonging for repose, comes to the front; the two types arecomplementary to each other, and spring from the same causes." (Beyond good and evil)

Nietzsche seemed to me to be concerned primarily with the overman, where race, if considered in an ethnic sense, is a factor of flexible status on the way to the overman. Overman = someone who has the capacity for drawn out obedience towards a personal goal, who harbours a personal stance on what is good and bad, and who abounds in will on his way to his conception of the good.

The first two phrases in the quote are explicit. Nietzsche clearly refers to biological heritage, stating his meaning as someone would from a couple centuries before or after the 19th. He goes on to explain that a mixed race person is very likely to be an underman type, the Epicurean or the Christian seeking soothing of the inner conflict brought on by conflicting heritage. But, he also says that from among such a demographic, a tiny minority have the potential to harness that inner conflict, turning it into greatness. He is talking about overman and underman in a larger sense, but gives our potential query, "but what about mixed race people?" a place within that larger context. I'm sure he does so with other specific demographics or social strata like the aristocracy or the working class.

Nietzsche was complex. I think, like Zen, he's both not-something and not-not-that-something.

I think people who want to cast Nietzsche's name around should understand what they speak of, and not try to polarize him into arguments fabricated from the dumkopf groupthink of our time.

I've only read "Beyond Good and Evil" (and some posthumous aphorisms), but I'd like to point out something which relates more to the method of Nietzsche's analysis rather than the actual subjects of that analysis. Inevitably, shallow "polarization" occurs if it is done by people without a full and comprehensive overview of all his statements, of the political climate of his times etc.

What is still fascinating to me is this incredible ability Nietzsche had of delivering challenging, yet consistent view of many aspects of reality, "jumping from mountaintop to mountaintop", as he would put it. Examples include: mock praise of mediocre, utilitarian, spirits like J.S Mill and Herbert Spencer, when he says there are certain truths made to be discovered only by such spirits; at one point he advocates the elimination of history, a terrifying game of chance for selecting the best human spirits, while at other times (or most?) he recognizes the invaluable benefits of suffering, pain and constraints which, in the process of overcoming, discipline man and ultimately turn him into a stronger individual (extraordinary chapter 225); and most of all, on the issue of nationalism, I was stunned to see he even wondered whether it would not have been better to replace anti-semitism with a mix between German and the Jews in Germany, since they are, in fact, the most pure race left on earth (chap. 251) - and to think the Nazis had made him an iconic figure.

Thus, it seems somewhat clear that, while maintaining consistency, he does not deny natural chaos and the universe of perspective, and, generally speaking, has an EXPERIMENTAL method. (I haven't seen anyone around here wondering whether races could be improved by cross-breeding, or even what kind of breeding and conditions could lead to the apparition of superior human types, surely a leitmotif of his works). In his own words, he professes a disgust for a final, conclusive perspective in understanding the universe, something I have yet to see in any single radical group out there (except, perhaps, black metal , or art in general). A fascinating and healthy attitude that may keep philosophy challenging, and I mean true philosophy, the one that brings forth light in the world through creation.

and most of all, on the issue of nationalism, I was stunned to see he even wondered whether it would not have been better to replace anti-semitism with a mix between German and the Jews in Germany, since they are, in fact, the most pure race left on earth (chap. 251) - and to think the Nazis had made him an iconic figure.

Nietsche's views on Jews were, in many ways, every bit as complex as anything else he concerned himself with. His comments regarding Jew and Jewish ideas range so far across the spectrum that it is quite believable that National Socialists or Jewish apologists alike could site him as being on "their side." Unfortunately, most who do that simply distill his works to say what they wish them to say...while ignoring the many passages that fully contradict those ideas.

As far as Jews being a pure race, I can hardly think of a more ethnically mixed people living - Russian Jews, Polish Jews, German Jews, Hungarian Jews, Shephardic Jews, French Jews, Hasidim, etc., etc. They may share some lineage, but "purity" is hardly a term I would use to describe them. I shall have to go back to "Beyond..." and see in what context Nietzsche made that statement.

Inevitably, shallow "polarization" occurs if it is done by people without a full and comprehensive overview of all his statements, of the political climate of his times etc.

Thus, it seems somewhat clear that, while maintaining consistency, he does not deny natural chaos and the universe of perspective, and, generally speaking, has an EXPERIMENTAL method. (I haven't seen anyone around here wondering whether races could be improved by cross-breeding, or even what kind of breeding and conditions could lead to the apparition of superior human types, surely a leitmotif of his works).

A fascinating and healthy attitude that may keep philosophy challenging, and I mean true philosophy, the one that brings forth light in the world through creation.

Let me translate this for the rest of us:

"Unlike you shallow retards, I do not polarize Nietzsche's philosophy; I only look toward the POSITIVE and EXPERIMENTAL aspects which are more mature than the negative, neanderthal, mono-browed attitudes of you ignoramuses. Philosophy, after all, should be the domain of coffee shops and fruitless discussion, in which we experiment but NEVER take a stance that requires we actually do something. That is how I polarize Nietzsche, to praise only his EXPERIMENTAL aspects and deny his call to arms to defend reality."

Most people do this to Nietzsche. They read a little, pull out one aspect they want, and then try to use him to justify their lifestyle.

I think his views are not as complex as most would say, but first, I think you should realize when he's talking about races he's talking about European races. Second, when he talks about Jews as pure, he's saying something the genetic evidence does bear out -- that despite the wide range of nationality, they are very similar as a population.

When he conjectures, mocks, discusses, etc. he is always getting at something -- he's trying to convince you to pick up one piece of the ignorance covering an issue like a carpet, enter it there, and then lead yourself to the conclusion, one that is guided by the pragmas he intersperses throughout his work. He deliberately logic-bombs you if you try to make a very simple derivation of his ideas.

I also don't think the Nazi/Jew split is as wide as most people think -- in fact, read this:

Quote

If we destroy any organizational cooperation of the Jews and expel thedangerous, subversive Jewish agitators who show any signs ofconspiratorial activities, the Jews will still have the synagogue, therabbi, to shield them. If we support Zionist plans and attempt aninternational solution by establishing a homeland for the Jews, we will beable to solve the Jewish Question not only in Germany, but in Europe andthe entire world. The entire world has an interest in such a solution, oneliminating this source of disorder, which constantly proceeds fromBolshevism. We must establish that clearly.

Perhaps the Jews will be able to become a nation, a people. That wouldrequire that Jewish workers, craftsmen, and settlers would develop fromthe Jewish population. If we regulate this plan, they we will create newfoundations for such a settlement. Scattering the Jews to the four windsdoes not solve the Jewish Question, but rather makes it worse. Asystematic program of settlement, therefore, is the best solution.

Nazis, Jews and every other racial group (ethnicity, race, etc) are after the same thing: self-preservation so they can continue evolving.

The opposite force to that is the distracted, oblivious, reality-denying "positive" and "progressive" view like our little shithead friend zetein expresses here, which wants to avoid reality and unite us all using social factors. It's like a big rave!

I think he, like others, are just trying to compete with other humans by coming up with their own "unique, uplifting, life-affirming" view, and while it fails, it fails because (a) they are detached from reality (b) they read some Nietzsche, but didn't read and study his philosophical passage and (c) because they're competing for social favor, they are fundamentally insincere.

^ Just for clarification I personally didn't mean "complex" as in complicated or intricate per se - but more along the lines of the mischievous joy he clealry took in making one work for the deeper, or actual meaning of what he wrote in his unique, less than direct style.

@ASBO:i was not insincere. had i been, i would not have recognized my own limitations from the very beginning. when i read what Nietzsche said about ending the blind selection of human types that history makes, the first thing i thought of was the SS Lebensborn. that's what i also had in mind when i mentioned of philosophy as challenging, and also when i mentioned an experimental way of thinking, mainly because Nietzsche sometimes traces inherent moral and intellectual traits to heredity, but then also mentions how infinitely superior inner strength can be in overcoming external limitations (i could give the exact quote, but i'm planning to stop anyhow)

still you're right. i did offend people it seems, by stating that i disliked that they hadn't pondered other aspects of the ideals they embarked on fulfilling, while, at the same time, they are worthy of respect for trying to engage in constructive actions - thus coming off as a smart-ass outsider. fuck it, i'll go read.

Shopenhauer, in reference to our seeking mates, posited an opposites attract theory. He claimed, as our mocha-race enthusiast interpreters in academia proffer, that we look for a mate that will cancel out our own shortcomings, or fill in the genetic gaps, resulting in more perfected offspring. He cited different colored races interbreeding for an example. It seems to me that Shopenhauer and Nietzsche were exploring (or dangerously experimenting with) Europe's ongoing, but now completely defunct Africa colonization of the time and the possibilities that would unfold in the proximate racial nexus therein.

Well, if these men were correct, using as a standard the former NSDAP Germans and German-Americans (purebreeds lacking diversity, thus having genetic gaps) who launched mankind from terra-firma to moon in about a decade's planning, we should expect our own American hybrid leader, possible Overman according to Nietzsche, definite Overman by popular global consensus, to spawn us a colony or two and a terraforming project on Mars.

mainly because Nietzsche sometimes traces inherent moral and intellectual traits to heredity, but then also mentions how infinitely superior inner strength can be in overcoming external limitations

Yet he acknowledges heredity to be the source of all abilities -- see his assaults on "free will." I think what he means is in line with our best science: 80% of your abilities are pre-determined, but 20% is up to you, and if you use that to live even a minimally disciplined life, you rise a layer.

In short, he was saying: life isn't difficult. Make the best of what you can, and breed yourselves toward the superman, no matter what is left.

However, he mentioned several times a doubt of racial mixing, and by racial mixing he means European racial mixing, e.g. too many southerns, easterns or neoliths (Irish) in the bloodline. Remember the lion imagery?

I feel this must be clarified, since he isn't refering specifically to heredity, as I put it; this is a translation of the quote in a book of posthumously published aphorisms by him, which in general have the character of sketches, a vast arsenal of ideas which demand organization:

"Against the theory of the influence of *conditions and of external causes: inner strength is infinitely superior; many occurences which seem to proceed an external influence are nothing but a mere adaptation of them coming from the interior. The exact same conditions can be interpreted and used in opposite ways; there are no factual realities. - A genius cannot be explained by such conditionings of origin." F.W.N.

*or environment, medium, surroundings, but I felt these did not express exactly the point.Among all such seemingly paradoxical statements, I would say he remains consistent (and definitely intelligible) in a few directions, first and foremost in his praises of the higher, nobler, human individuals, and in his wish to see a powerful, highly developed class of aristocrats, but investigating the conditions for the fulfillment of such ideals is a monumental task which leads beyond race, nationalism and other concepts desiring an absolute foothold. Spiritual eugenics which needs careful examination.